Russert, Semi-Live

The suspense mounts as we obsess over Swopa's live-blogging (Russert 1).  However, we have an early indication that his testimony will be lame. 

The question of whether Russert weaseled in his statement by maintaining a distinction between knowing Valerie Wilson's name, and knowing something about Joe Wilson's wife seems to have been addressed by Fitzgerald here (but this is a paraphrase, not a transcript):

F: At any time did you [and Libby] discuss the wife of Joseph Wilson?

T: No, because I didn't know who she was until several days later

The defense is up; as of 2:48, we are here:

W: He called you in your managerial capacity of NBC News, right?

T: I didn't know it at first, but yes.

(Wells writes this down, too.)

It's 2:48.

Since I don't know where Wells is going I may not recognize it when we get there.

MORE:  In related news, Byron York describes the bending of space and time by Joe Wilson and his apologists.  Very quickly, one newly released document is the memo prepared by Dick Cheney's CIA briefer noting his interest in the recent report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium.  What is eye-catching is the date, which is Feb 13, 2002.  This is *potentially* a big deal becasue the Plame note suggesting her hubby for a Niger trip is dated Feb 12 (see the Senate Intel report). 

That jibes with what Libby was told by Grenier (or Grossman) - the CIA was reacting to inquiries from State and Defense regarding the recent DIA report when they teed up Joe; Cheney became one more excuse to send him and a potent name to drop (raise your hand if you think Joe Wilson liked being told that his mission was at the request of the VP; keep your hand down if you think he would have been just as pleased to go at the behest of an Undersecretary of State).

Per York's sources, the Senate never got this memo from the CIA.  Interesting - we were assured that this trial would blow the lid off of the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, and maybe it will.

FOR THE COGNOSCENTI: Cecil Turner will feast on the York tidbit; let's hope the rest of us enjoy his "I Told You So" strut.

Comments

[Pete]

Don't tell me that Wells did not retain Tom Maguire for Russert's cross examination :(

At least I hope that Tom was able to slip up some questions for the cross examination :)

[clarice]

Two more Fitz filings (trying to keep his witnesses fwom being cross examined very much.)
http://members.cox.net/liinda/270.htm
http://members.cox.net/liinda/271.htm

He's bringing out that since he wa calling him in his managerial capacity there was no confidentiality issue at all, TM

[JM Hanes]

Cross posted, per FDL:

W: Do you have a present recollection of not discussing Wilson's wife, are you just reasoning backwards from the fact that you did not know about her until Novak's column.

T: I have no recollection, but it would have been impossible.

That's big. Maybe really big.

[JM Hanes]

It also makes that reconstruction work (repeated in testimony!) on Tim Russert's own show, more significant. Am I crazy, or did Welles just lay the foundation for Mitchell & Gregory??

[topsecretk9]

MainWebReport version

Are you telling me as an agressive newsperson, who is know for going after the facts, that you wouldn’t ask questions about one of the biggest stories in the world that week? I described what occurred

No recollection of discussion about Wilson in the conversation

You have no recollection of NOT having a conversation about Wilson’s wife?

Dont understand question

Do you have a present recollection that you did not ask about Mrs Wilson, or are you reasoning backward because you did not know about her until Novak’s column.
I have no recollection, and it would have been impossible.

(some kind of objection, sustained, not sure exactly what)

First time you were asked about week of July 6 conversation was in November 2003?
Correct

You have no notes of conversation?
no
No file memorandum close to the conversation?
no
You can’t even remember if you had one or two conversations that week?
I beleive it was one, but not sure

You told FBI that you remembered at least one and maybe two conversations ?
I only recall one conversation

So the FBI would have been incorrect?
(Wells brings FBI notes to show Russert)

Russert gets notes, puts on glasses. Judge tells him to read it to himself. Russert says ‘Its two pages’, Wells points to top of page and says just that. Russert says ‘Cant I read the whole thing?’ and Wells says sure go ahead.
Russert seems to kind of take control through this exchange, his presence is really soemthing to watch on stand. Compared to Bond for instance, he seems like a ringer to be in the witness box.
—

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Maine Blogger is keeping up, faster.

Wells asks Russert about his memory. Russert, it seems kept no notes "on the most important story of the year, breaking."

And, then he goes to the FBI "notes." Which is two pages. Russert asks if he can read the whole thing. And, Wells says "yes."

But it seems to contradict the testimony Russert gave to Wells' first questions.

[Dan S]

JMH,

I suspect Wells is going to aim to make him retract that one. That it's "impossible," I mean.

[Jane]

What are you thinking JM?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

-----------quote----------
W: You had the chief of staff of the VP on the phone, and

T: It was very much a listening mode — he was very agitated, not in the mood to talk.

W: But you didn't take the opportunity?

T: He was saying VP wasn't involved, I took what he said in the spirit he was offering it.

W: Weren't people at NBC trying to learn about Wilson trip?

T; Yes, they were.

W: Why didn't you ask chief of staff of VP?

T: Didn't have opportunity.

W: Why not?

T: Was complainding about program I hadn't seen, so I did

W: Wouldn't have been natural for you to ask, though?

T: Wasn't a natural phone call. Never had one like that from such a high official, complaining and agitated.

W: But such an aggressive journalist, such a big story

T: What I said is what happened.
---------endquote--------

Wells had the same reaction I did. This just isn't believable. Russert is testifying to falling down on his job.

[Dan S]

Patrick,

But his excuse is he just got back from vacation and had been out of the loop. That MIGHT even fly. Maybe.

[clarice]

Libby just got back from his vacation when he was interviewed by Bond--without his notes.

[hit and run]

I liked the question about his salary - even though it was objectionable.

As in, NBC pays you what? And you didn't get this story? You didn't even try to get this story? You think they may reconsider your salary with this testimony?

[Jim E.]

I want to know if Russert actually used the word "impossible." Not a lot of wiggle room there. But this isn't a transcript, so who really knows at this point. If he did say "impossible," that's pretty solid.

Plus the part where he specifically said no one else at NBC knew anything about Wilson's wife until AFTER Novak's column.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

Interesting parallel. Think it will turn up in the close?

[Jim E.]

In short, not seeing a lot of parsing from Russert at this point.

[Dan S]

"Impossible" turns up in both liveblogs I saw, so I'd say yes, Jim E.

[Ranger]

Plus the part where he specifically said no one else at NBC knew anything about Wilson's wife until AFTER Novak's column.

Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Well, that is good for the Russert count, but it impeaches Ari's story that he specificly told Gregory about Plame (by name).

[clarice]

Yes, ranger--And BTW "impossible" opens up the barn door.

[Javani]

Russert is a smooth, glib character.

He will be tough to break.

His "two" conversations hint was probably a stumble to the FBI, a quick judgment whether Mithcell and Gregory would shut up.

[Cecil Turner]

Plus the part where he specifically said no one else at NBC knew anything about Wilson's wife until AFTER Novak's column.

That was stupid. How could he know? He also obviously doesn't remember it terribly well, but that's just another indicator nothing very interesting happened. Bottom line is that Libby didn't tell him anything. (Though I think it'd be an absolutely hilarious bit of poetic justice if the jury came away thinking he was lying.)

[Jim E.]

As long as folks are ripping Pumpkinhead's professionalism, I think this is my favorite paraphrase from Timmeh: "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified."

What a pathetic "policy" for a reporter. I would've hoped that his default policy would be "on the record" unless told otherwise.

[Dan S]

fdl: "T: I have no recollection, but it would have been impossible."

mainewebreport: "I have no recollection, and it would have been impossible."

[topsecretk9]

Via Main Web Report

does this refresh your memory about how many calls? i only recollect one call

correct that you cant remember the date of the call?
yes

no recollection of how long the call lasted?
correct

August 2004 deposition testimony , 13 months after July Libby call. Today is 3.5 years since that conversation took place.
Fair to say November interview was much closer to the time of the phone call?
Yes

You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no

Do you recall saying that you cannot rule out the possibility that you and Libby talked about Wilson’s wife?
No.

(Wells asks Libby to read last paragraph of notes)

Russert says those are not his words.

Is it your testimony that you did not tell investigators in 2003 that you could not rule it out completely?
No

Did you tell FBI in 2003 that you speak to many people and it is difficult to reconstruct conversations, particularly one that occurred several months ago?
I dont recall but I may have, agrees with statement in general

Do you recall telling FBI about a buzz going around about Joe Wilson?
yes

is buzz sometimes rumor in the news business?
we try to stay away from rumors, they dont make it on the air

Didnt ask you what makes it on the air, what causes you to further investigate. That does happen correct?
Sure

Not necessary as a news reporter to know something is a fact to ask questions about it?
You have to have some basis in fact

Russert describes pre and post Novak buzz. Pre Novak concerned trip, what did VP know,etc. Post took on a new dimension, regarding wife.

Russert stands by claim that he learned of Wilson’s wife through Novak article.

After the Novak article, when was the first time you reported on it?
Took several days to discuss whether or not they should report it, classified, etc.

NBC worked very diligently to vet it, and policy of NBC is to regard national security issues closely

[Jane]

"You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no"

WEll sheesh that opens the door a bit, no?

[Alcibiades]

Both FDL and Maine Web Report report use of "impossible."

So far the cross is interesting.

[Sue]

That's big. Maybe really big.

I thought the same thing when I read it.

[Dan S]

And what's this?

"You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no"

[clarice]

He had two choice:Possible but I have no recollection
Or Impossible
Impossible and no one knew--Katy bar the door--Mitchell and Gregory come in I should think.

[Javani]

""You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?

I did not state her name, no"""

Just her name??? Ouchy, it's true! Russert knew about the wife and is now "forgetting" it.

He's smooth though, the jury would have to be plamaniacs to pick up on his deceit.

[Ranger]

Did you tell FBI in 2003 that you speak to many people and it is difficult to reconstruct conversations, particularly one that occurred several months ago?
I dont recall but I may have, agrees with statement in general

Hmmm... that is hard to square with the certainty of "impossible."

[sad]

But his excuse is he just got back from vacation and had been out of the loop.

I don't even have a paying job, just a full time volunteer and I have never had a vacation without multiple phone calls, emails,etc...

My husband is the same but worse. Looks like we need to encourage our kids to be "journalists."

[hit and run]

You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no

Is that true, question was stated as about saying anyting about wife and Russert says didn't state name?

[topsecretk9]

--I did not state her name, ---

Do you think he realized the impossble problem and quickly went back to canned statement?

[P]

So MTP Producers review the advance wire? Did they see Novak article on the 11th??

"""How did Wilson come to appear?

T: Producer saw op-ed on advance wire....""

Hmmm

[Dan S]

Dunno, H&R, only have mainwebreport on it so far.

[hit and run]

But no Wells digging in for specific "about wife"? Wells lets that go?

[Jane]

Has the name "Valerie Plame" been uttered in this trial to date? No one has stated her name and we've had an entire trial about her.

[Martin]

No Jane it really doesn't.

Face it-there's no Deus ex Machina; there's no "scapegoat" defense; and Cheney is not testifying.

It's down to Libby and his memory defense. Risible, but maybe he can pull it off. As the Judge said, it'd be suicide not to testify, but the guy hasn't made a right move yet.

[Ranger]

Do you recall saying that you cannot rule out the possibility that you and Libby talked about Wilson’s wife?
No.

(Wells asks Libby to read last paragraph of notes)

Russert says those are not his words.

Is it your testimony that you did not tell investigators in 2003 that you could not rule it out completely?
No

Just before:

Did you tell FBI in 2003 that you speak to many people and it is difficult to reconstruct conversations, particularly one that occurred several months ago?
I dont recall but I may have, agrees with statement in general

Looks like Wells is going to argue that Russerts memory improves over time as well.

[Dan S]

fdr: "W: (confusing question)

T: I don't know what that means, but I know that I didn't know about Wilson's wife. That is a significant fact that I would have reported and investigated."

[Jane]

No Jane it really doesn't.

Don't bet the bank on that Martin.

[clarice]

Then why did you say that to the FBI?
Or, are you saying they just made that up?

[Jane]

Or is he saying that the FBI is lying - again?

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

It appears the FDL gang has a pretty high standard for the cross of Russ. Unsuccessful unles Russ retracts. Wells knows Russ won't retract. But Russ has already given him what he needs: "I have no recollection, but it's impossible." Wells can argue the "it's impossible makes no sense, in light of the lack of any effort the big cheese news guy put into this matter. Plus, he's already stated that no one else at the office knew the info, now Wells can bring up Mitchell, and impeach Russert and herself.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

Nice lose-lose for the prosecution. Either FBI further undermined, or Russert's certainty is.

[topsecretk9]

It's hard to tell, but is Russert dispting the FBI report of his interview - like the other CIA fellow?

[clarice]

Maybe Russert opened the door about who was present when he made that statement--since he indicates the statement as recorded may not be accurate.

[Javani]

I'm thinking Gregory told Russert "family member" or such instead of "wife."

Russert's obviously skating on a margin. No way otherwise he would say "I did not state her name"

He might be a liar, but he's a cool cucumber. So far the only way to impeach him I see is to have Gregory say "I told him."

[Jane]

Maune guy says Russert is "unflappable".

[hit and run]

So far the only way to impeach him I see is to have Gregory say "I told him."

Someone tell Gregory he gets Russert's job if Russert is canned.

[Jane]

Gregory would rather go to jail than do that I would bet.

[clarice]

If Fleischer told the truth, Gregory knew all the details. If he was in error and said only what Dickerson says he said,"Ask the CIA", Gregory would only have known there was some connection between Wilson and the CIA.

[clarice]

Here's what I don't get..Russert's statement is only 2 pp and the prosecution didn't go over it with him before they called him?

[Javani]

From Maine:

"Wells is questioning Russert about the wording of NBC’s statement about the issue. This seems like a futile endeavor for Wells, Russert is unflappable."

NBC's statement is a gold mine, but Russert so far is a good witness for Fitz.

[hit and run]

Or they did and Russert is acting?

[T.J. King]

When Russert says he had never received a call like that from such a high official as an excuse for him not to do his job asking about the biggest story in DC, I couldn't help but remember this defense before. The Darth Cheney defense.

Alan Foley and CIA: We were so inimidated and diss'd when the VP and Libby came to Langley.

John Bolton: He was intimidating and he yelled sometimes at work

Porter Goss: He is dissing CIA by coming and telling us what to do. He is making life long employees demoralized and intimidated. (Picture Wild Bill Donovan or Bill Casey saying that)

Tim Russert: I was sitting around hoping to get a scoop on the biggest story in Washington, and thinking how do I get a chance to talk to someone high up in the OVP. Suddenly his Chief of staff called and I was so intimidated and demoralized, I completely forgot to ask him about the one thing I spend all my waking hours thinking about.

I also find it interesting that Andrea Mitchell who claimed on July 8 interview that "Covert operatives" were behind the trip and a few weeks later used the phrase , Plame's identity was "widely known". Then Russert, according to Libby said, "all the reporters know...". The language seems similar. I can't help but think that in that 48 hour period between Mitchell and the Russert Call, that Mitchell, Russert, Gregory, and the whole NBC crew were on fir talking about Plame. Why else would she have flipped when Armitage got the Von Sustren interview. Russert and Mitchell are using the same script, how could Libby make that language up before Mitchell used it.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I figured that Russert would refuse prep - appearance of impartiality, donchaknow.

[Other Tom]

"... but the guy hasn't made a right move yet."

Really, Martin? Hasn't he kept all sorts of criminals like Rove, Cheney and Bush from being indicted? Golly, it looks to me like he's carried out our plan to perfection. Are there any flaws in it to this point? I sure can't see them--we finish this thing off, then we bring on the previously-agreed-upon pardon, and you poor stupes are left with visions of Fitzmas dancing in your heads.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'After the Novak article, when was the first time you reported on it?

'Took several days to discuss whether or not they should report it, classified, etc.'

He just contradicted himself. Earlier he testified he knew it was big news when he read it in Novak's column.

[topsecretk9]

I love this ine in TM's update regarding Wilson's VP "behesting" farce

FOR THE COGNOSCENTI: Cecil Turner will feast on the York tidbit; let's hope the rest of us enjoy his "I Told You So" strut.

[Martin]

"If Fleischer told the truth, Gregory knew all the details."

Except if Fleischer told the truth, then Libby told Fleischer, who told Gregory, who told Russert, who told Libby.

Got it.

[clarice]

*IF*Martin..We already have one reporter flatly contradicting him.And the other hasn't testified yet.

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

W: (pause) After you deposition with Mr. Fitzgerald, NBC released a statement.

(Wells shows statement to Russert)

It's 3:21. Switching to a new thread.

HERE IT COMES, TM.

[Ranger]

"If Fleischer told the truth, Gregory knew all the details."

Except if Fleischer told the truth, then Libby told Fleischer, who told Gregory, who told Russert, who told Libby.

Got it.

Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Which brings us to exactly the point you seemed to have missed. Ari didn't tell the truth. He might not have lied either, he just remembered something different from the way it actually happened.

[Jim E.]

So I take it folks here think Russert's been a poor witness for the prosecution thus far?

I wonder if Libby agrees.

[Javani]

Martin:

"Risible"

Snooty condescension is a sure sign of discomfort on your part that Libby will skate.

You won't do well on the witness stand.

[Martin]

Ok so IF Fleischer lied then Clarice, Fleischer never told Gregory who never told Russert who never told Libby who nevertheless testified before the grand jury that Russert told him. And this is still good for Libby.

Got it.

[Cycloptichorn]

Not everyone here thinks that he has been a poor witness so far; just those who are operating under the assumption that the only possible theory is that Libby is telling the truth.

[Ranger]

Jim E.

No, actually so far I think he has been a good witness for Fitz. But I also have a feeling Wells expected as much, and is using Russert to set up other testemony he wants to bring in. He already has Russert questioning the FBI notes (that really doesn't help Fitz much).

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Libby telling Fleischer, if he actually did, is not a crime, is it? The President's press secretary has the highest clearances available and are usually in on all discussions. Besides, official to official is not really part of this case, is it?

Now, Fleischer going out and blabbing to a gaggle of reporters something he knows is internal confidential is a crime, IMHO.

[Javani]

Jim E.

"So I take it folks here think Russert's been a poor witness for the prosecution thus far?"

No, that's your expectation challenged by the lack of characterizations like "poor."

FDL is worth a hoot. They can't figure out why Wells is making such a big deal that Russert and Libby are not friends - but that is a critical point.

[Martin]

Exactly Ranger-but then we're back to Libby's memory defense.

Since Javani doesn't like "risible" let's just call that defense "so laughably stupid only a fool would fall for it."

[Jim E.]

Byron York: "Libby attorney Ted Wells is trying, so far with little success, to raise doubts about Russert's assertion that he did not know who Joseph Wilson's wife was or whether she worked for the CIA at the time of the phone conversation in which Libby says Russert told him that."

[topsecretk9]

Via Main Report

--Wells back up.

You wrote a letter to Buffalo News in June 2004 in which you express regret in your error about not recalling a phone call. Do you recall?

Russert asks to see the letter

Wells wont allow this, wants him to say right now that he doesn’t recall it.
Russert says he wants to see it, that there were many other parts to the story.
Wells wants him to answer clearly about his unaided recollection of the letter.
I recall the letter, not the specifics
Part of the letter expressed regret?
If youre saying that,fine, I don’t recall that.
How many letters to you write to news organizations expressing regrets, alot?
No
You did write such a letter to Buffalo News correct?
That may have been part of it.
Russert asks for letter again.
I’m not going to give it to you now. (emphatically)
Wells asks him if he remembers again.
You have a faulty recollection?
Russert kind of agrees
(this exchange is very odd. Wells is trying to impugn Russert’s memory in two dimensions at the same time)

Russert is off now. He can’t remember the details of a letter he wrote, which expressed regret about not remembering a phone call.

Walton comes to the rescue, says he’s saying he doesnt remember, I dont think we’re getting anywhere at this point.

Wells gives Russert the letter finally.--

[Jim E.]

Javani,

Your response to me is non-decipherable.

But I had you in mind when I asked the question. Do you genuinely think Russert is perjuring himself?

[hit and run]

Hey JimE, Javani from 12:38
NBC's statement is a gold mine, but Russert so far is a good witness for Fitz.

[Javani]

From Maine:

""Part of the letter expressed regret?
If youre saying that,fine, I don’t recall that.
How many letters to you write to news organizations expressing regrets, alot?
No
You did write such a letter to Buffalo News correct?
That may have been part of it.
Russert asks for letter again.
I’m not going to give it to you now. (emphatically)
Wells asks him if he remembers again.
You have a faulty recollection?
Russert kind of agrees
(this exchange is very odd. Wells is trying to impugn Russert’s memory in two dimensions at the same time)""

Not odd at all. Impeaching Russert's memory to hell. Complete divergence in his perfect memories of a telephone conversation versus a written document he himself wrote.

Wells! My man!

[Cecil Turner]

He just contradicted himself. Earlier he testified he knew it was big news when he read it in Novak's column.

Yes he did. And the disparity between his earlier FBI bit is damaging. This may work out after all.

. . . let's hope the rest of us enjoy his "I Told You So" strut.

I strutted too early and now can't enjoy it properly. Oh well.

Ok so IF Fleischer lied then Clarice, Fleischer never told Gregory . . .

That doesn't follow. Fleischer also got it from the INR memo (probably second-hand), which also gives him motive to lie about it.

[clarice]

Let me suggest that Wells is pointing out Russert's failures at recollection--and--running out the clock for tomorrow.

[roanoke]

Well if you read the clip fromthe Senate Intelligence Committee Report a little further-this is interesting-

- The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activitv.[sic]” This was just one day before CPD sent a cable -requesting concurreke[sic] with CPD’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him “there’s this crazy report” on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. m)The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf 1 4,. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near hture[sic] and might be willing to use his contacts in the region --. Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about - during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligencereport on the visit.

So this wasn't the first time Valerie volunteered Joseph-it's a pattern.

It also has the "crazy report" quote Other Tom was wondering about.

[Javani]

Jim E. -

""Do you genuinely think Russert is perjuring himself?""

Isn't everyone at this trial perjuring themselves?

I'd omit from that list Cathie Martin and maybe Ari, except he said Libby used the name "Plame".

[danking70]

That's impossible Javani...

[Alcibiades]

Why does he want to run out the clock for tomorrow? What's the strategy behind that?

[malcontent]

So let me get this straight: many of you here believe that Libby was told of Plame's CIA status by Cheney on June 12th, but then forgot, only to be reminded again by Russert about a month later?

You're saying that during the most damaging broadside to the administration's case for war, when Libby was absolutely obsessed with gathering information on Wilson, that he somehow *forgot* that huge piece of information about Wilson's wife?

Seriously?

[Dan S]

"and--running out the clock for tomorrow.

Posted by: clarice"

And maybe setting up for a final exchange he wants to leave dangling overnight, if today follows other examples of his crosses.

[pete]

Who do you think will get the top bunk? Libby or Cheney?

[Dan S]

No, malcontent.

We all all KNOW what this is about, Rove told us. It's all a conspiracy from day one, and Fitz is the key play....

mphm

*disconnects*

[clarice]

alciabiades--if he gets into the tough stuff for Russert and there's an overnight break, the witness might regain his composure. Trial counsel always likes to do the hard cross all at once without an overnight break if possible.(Also, it's easier for the jury to remember it that way.)

[Martin]

Malcontent, they really believe that.

It's like being at a backwoods snakehandling service, though. Their obtuseness gives them strange powers.

[Alcibiades]

Thanks Clarice.

[clarice]

Martin et al, are you operating under some magical thinking delusion that Russert will save the day if only you dump your troll leavings here every other post?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

When I saw Russert described as unflappable; I thought of John Gotti. He was "unflappable," too. Plus, he wore nice suits.

Did anyone catch Wells' first question to Russert that contained the word "lame?" Or was that he was looking down at the busted ankle?

[Sue]

It's like being at a backwoods snakehandling service, though. Their obtuseness gives them strange powers.

Does that make you feel superior? If you had as much disdain for the religion wanting to kill you as you do for the religion not bothering you one bit, we might get somewhere in this war on terror.

[james]

malcontent

he somehow *forgot* that huge piece of information about Wilson's wife

What huge piece of information would that be?

[Javani]

Malcontent:

""So let me get this straight: many of you here believe that Libby was told of Plame's CIA status by Cheney on June 12th, but then forgot, only to be reminded again by Russert about a month later?""

No. But the case is "about" what he remembered dfive to eight months later.

"You're saying that during the most damaging broadside to the administration's case for war, when Libby was absolutely obsessed with gathering information on Wilson, that he somehow *forgot* that huge piece of information about Wilson's wife?"

LOL. The most damaging broadside was the Bushies trust in Valerie Plame for her finding the "aluminum tubes" were for nuclear work.

"Seriously?"

Yup. Yes'm. Coulda a happened. The only thing for sure is mocking sneers won't abate and you will not discuss impeachments of witnesses, only Fitz' canned prep.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Martin, you know absolutely zero about this case or how government works. You display your ignorance every time you post and so do your cohorts. Name calling is what you do when you are outclassed and when someone decides to cast you a bone and show you the error of your erroneous conclusions.

Now, all, let's ignore the trolls. They are just too uninformed to be worth the bandwidth.

[hit and run]

Malcontent, they really believe that.

It's like being at a backwoods snakehandling service, though. Their obtuseness gives them strange powers.

Listen, Libby may be guilty. Cheney may have ordered the code red. Bush may have strings on his back that Rove controls. Big oil may be running the whole show.

But you will not come on this board and mock snake handling! You will not, you hear me? Some things are sacred and out of bounds and you crossed the line.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I just did a Pro-Quest search for mentions of Joseph Wilson between July 13th and July 23rd, 2003. The first mentions (outside of Novak's column of 7-14) of Wilson's wife having been disclosed come from Royce and Phelps in Newsday on July 22. More than a week after Russert said; 'That's it'.

Russert is testifying from hindsight.

[Uncle Pinky]

Wells is showing that memory is especially faulty whenin an agitated state. Strange that FDL has not included the "Not by name" Russert response. Warum?

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

Malcontent:
When you say Libby was "absolutely obsessed" with gathering information on Wilson, you are incorrect. He was "obsessed" with rebutting critics, particularly untruthful ones, e.g. Wilson. We have several witnesses, each of whom have varying recollections of mentioning Wilson's wife, but none of them has offered any testimony that Libby was "obsessed" with that portion of the story.